Police FIR cannot sustain PC&PNDT prosecution, Chhattisgarh HC rules while holding doctors guilty under MTP Act and IPC over preserved foetuses

On 5–7 August 2011, officials inspected LifeCare Hospital, Deepka, and allegedly found several preserved foetuses of approximately 16–32 weeks, abortion-related instruments, expired medicines, and other objectionable materials.

The Block Medical Officer forwarded the inspection report to the police, resulting in registration of FIR No. 69/2011 against the hospital’s doctors and operator under Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”), Section 22(3) of the PC&PNDT Act, and Section 315 of the IPC.

After investigation, the accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, who acquitted them on 31 August 2016, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The State preferred an appeal against acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution initiated through a police FIR and charge-sheet was legally maintainable for the alleged offence under Section 22(3) of the PC&PNDT Act, in view of Section 28 of that Act?

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal of the respondents under Section 5 of the MTP Act, for violation of Section 3, was perverse or contrary to the evidence on record?

3. Whether the prosecution had established the offence under Section 315 of the IPC, and whether the respondents had shown that the relevant acts were done in good faith to save the life of the mother?

4. Whether the High Court could interfere with the acquittal in an appeal against acquittal where the trial court’s findings were alleged to be perverse or legally erroneous?

Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act creates a statutory restriction on cognizance of offences under that Act, permitting cognizance only upon a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, an authorised officer, or a person complying with the statutory notice requirement; offences under the Act are triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Sections 30 of the PC&PNDT Act and Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules regulate search and seizure by the Appropriate Authority.

Under Sections 3 and 5 of the MTP Act, termination of pregnancy is legally protected only within the prescribed gestational limits and statutory conditions, subject to the emergency exception where termination is immediately necessary to save the mother’s life.

Section 315 IPC penalises an act intended to prevent a child from being born alive or to cause its death after birth, unless done in good faith to save the mother’s life.

The Court applied Section 111 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proving good faith in circumstances involving active confidence, relying on Sewakram Sobhani v. Karanjia, 1981 (3) SCC 208, which treats good faith as a fact-dependent question requiring due care and attention.

It also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, 2026 INSC 901, concerning the limited role of police investigation under the PC&PNDT Act.

It also relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 INSC 114, which permits interference with acquittal where the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading, or omission of material evidence and only the finding of guilt is reasonably possible.

The High Court held that the PC&PNDT prosecution was procedurally invalid because the case originated in a police FIR and culminated in a police charge-sheet, rather than a complaint by the Appropriate Authority in the manner contemplated by Section 28.

Consequently, the acquittal under Section 22(3) of the PC&PNDT Act was affirmed, although on a different legal basis from that adopted by the trial court.

In contrast, the evidence of the inspection-team doctors established that multiple foetuses, including foetuses of approximately 16–32 weeks, were preserved in the hospital along with abortion-related instruments.

The Court found that the trial court had wrongly treated the absence of a woman’s complaint or the fact that no abortion was witnessed during the raid as sufficient to negate the alleged offences.

The respondents failed to explain that the foetuses resulted from lawful termination carried out within the statutory conditions or in good faith to save a mother’s life.

On that basis, the trial court’s acquittal under Section 5 of the MTP Act and Section 315 IPC was held perverse and warranting appellate interference.

The acquittal of the respondents under Section 22(3) of the PC&PNDT Act was affirmed because the prosecution was instituted through an impermissible police FIR and charge-sheet, contrary to Section 28 of the Act.

The acquittal under Section 5 of the MTP Act and Section 315 IPC was set aside, and the High Court held that the prosecution had proved those offences against the respondents.

The matter was directed to be listed for hearing the accused on the question of sentence under the applicable procedural provision.